Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Isaac on September 17, 2015, 02:09:46 pm
-
Any suggestions on why this might be a good idea? (Seems counter to the advice I've seen on LuLa and elsewhere.)
You'll notice that the raw (out-of-camera) file is underexposed …
This is something I do when photographing landscapes because I prefer to use the available dynamic range rather than shooting for HDR or using a neutral density filter. I generally underexpose landscape images by two to three stops (https://books.google.com/books?id=cajfBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20photoshop%20workbook&pg=PA222#v=onepage&q=%22I%20generally%20underexpose%20landscape%20images%20by%20two%20to%20three%20stops%22&f=false).
p222 The Photoshop Workbook, Glyn Dewis
-
Any suggestions on why this might be a good idea? (Seems counter to the advice I've seen on LuLa and elsewhere.)
I can certainly understand the reasoning if there is sky involved as cloud texture and colour can be so easily lost. TBH if I want a decent sky in any sort of picture then I expose for that element and hope the subject itself is recoverable. Sometimes it obviously won't be so you have grit your teeth and accept a dull white blanket instead.
-
Basically, he is exposing for the sky, assuming that it is so bright that it would appear blown out with a normal autoexposure setting. Essentially, he is using exposure compensation. 2 to 3 stops seems a bit drastic to me, though.
-
did he say how does he meter - camera matrix metering ? or spot metering ? if he is spot metering off the brightest spot he wants to have any details there and dials in the positive expocorrection then why he uses the wording "underexpose" to confuse our Isaac 8) ?
-
Any suggestions on why this might be a good idea? (Seems counter to the advice I've seen on LuLa and elsewhere.)
I say ETTR, you say underexposure, I say IQ, you say gray card, potato, potato, tomato, tomato, let's call the whole thing off...
-
With the early Canon D-SLRs I usually underexposed a bit, especially when it came to skies with any textural detail or obvious tonal gradation. Those cameras tended to flatten highlight tonality. In a narrow-tonal-range scene I'd often go with –2 stops (below the camera's blinkie warning, that is) to stay out of the "flattened zone." But if I wanted good low-mid/shadow delineation I'd expose for that and let the highlights get smushed or even blow. Nowadays I have much less of a transparency film mentality. I'm more interested in those low-mids & shadows, and as a result I often blow highlights with impunity.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
My take is that we need to avoid clipping non specular highlights. I mostly base my exposures on the histograms. It is a good exercise to check out raw histograms with a program like RawDigger.
Just to say, histograms in Lightroom are not to be trusted and the same applies to Capture One.
Best regards
Erik
I say ETTR, you say underexposure, I say IQ, you say gray card, potato, potato, tomato, tomato, let's call the whole thing off...
-
Even with a sky just short of blinking highlights in camera, you are probably less than 1 stop under exposed relative to ideal raw ETTR.
I cannot see any justification for recommending to under exposed 2-3 stops.
This advise seems very misleading to me, especially if you work with a limited DR body.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Even with a sky just short of blinking highlights in camera, you are probably less than 1 stop under exposed relative to ideal raw ETTR.
I cannot see any justification for recommending to under exposed 2-3 stops.
This advise seems very misleading to me, especially if you work with a limited DR body.
Cheers,
Bernard
so may be he spotmeters the some darkest place in the frame when he still needs a good (ok, acceptable, passable) S/N and then dials in 2-3 stops of negative exposure correction, that explains his choice of the wording ::)
-
mea culpa I should know by now that no one will look at the source material :-)
The context is a 4am sunrise photo (https://books.google.com/books?id=cajfBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20photoshop%20workbook&pg=PA222#v=snippet&q=%224%20a.m.%20to%20catch%20the%20sunrise%22&f=false).
-
mea culpa I should know by now that no one will look at the source material :-)
The context is a 4am sunrise photo (https://books.google.com/books?id=cajfBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20photoshop%20workbook&pg=PA222#v=onepage&q=%224%20a.m.%20to%20catch%20the%20sunrise%22%22&f=false).
But that link just shows us a rhino wandering aimlessly across a barren landscape, which is quite apt in a way
-
If you don't see the blue link "Page 221" to click, use the search box "4 a.m. to catch the sunrise".
-
Any suggestions on why this might be a good idea? (Seems counter to the advice I've seen on LuLa and elsewhere.)
In the context provided, it makes no sense. Now the sky is part of the image so exposure for the sky is part of the total picture. If there's something in the sky that you don't want clipped, by all means expose less for that area of the image! That may mean the 'landscape' itself is two-three stops less than the sky, fine. But if the casual reader feels the idea is to under expose all landscapes or that ETTR or better, OEFR optimal exposure for raw isn't pertinent, they've been fooled.
-
The author provides only a rendered image as the proof that the image is underexposed, which is close to nothing. The only way to see if the raw is underexposed or not will be using a tool like RawDigger, than can display raw values.
Maybe this is the author's experience based on trial and error to be safe and avoid blown highlights. In general I think this is not good advice.
... OEFR optimal exposure for raw isn't pertinent, they've been fooled.
Sorry I'm lost. What is OEFR?
-
For a recent landscape shot into the (shaded) sun, I was surprised to find that using Nikon's highlight-weighted metering, I got a reading that was 5 (yes, 5) stops below that indicated by matrix metering.
The Raw file looked horrible and my first thought was "that will never work".
But pulling the Shadows slider in Lightroom all the way to the right brought out the detail in the shadows while leaving the highlights unblown.
As I say, I was surprised.
-
For a recent landscape shot into the (shaded) sun, I was surprised to find that using Nikon's highlight-weighted metering, I got a reading that was 5 (yes, 5) stops below that indicated by matrix metering.
The Raw file looked horrible and my first thought was "that will never work".
But pulling the Shadows slider in Lightroom all the way to the right brought out the detail in the shadows while leaving the highlights unblown.
As I say, I was surprised.
I always feel that dramatic correction such as this always introduces an artificial look into the picture. Colours and contrast are all distorted and of course noise can become an issue. Purely from a subjective point of view I feel that altering any part of an image by more than two or three stops in relation to another can cause an overall imbalance that just looks wrong.
-
Any suggestions on why this might be a good idea?
Because he's a putz?
Look, if one has half a clue what it means for optimal digital exposure, one doesn't do any knee jerk exposure by lowering the photon count. While one can bring up the shadows (or lower the highlights) it really optimal to make the exposure optimal for the scene (and maybe bracket) to get the best final rendering one can. But intentionally under exposing is pretty backwards...
-
Any suggestions on why this might be a good idea? (Seems counter to the advice I've seen on LuLa and elsewhere.)
Exposure for the highlights otherwise you lose them. This is a typical situation with a landscape with a sky in it which, with film, we'd use ND grads to sort out. Now, a better alternative is to take two exposures and blend them in post. I often stitch landscapes with multi-rows of variable exposure so each frame is well exposed. Dynamic range never really becomes an issue then.
-
Exposure for the highlights otherwise you lose them. This is a typical situation with a landscape with a sky in it which, with film, we'd use ND grads to sort out. Now, a better alternative is to take two exposures and blend them in post. I often stitch landscapes with multi-rows of variable exposure so each frame is well exposed. Dynamic range never really becomes an issue then.
Yes, Mark, but stitching is something pretty specialised (or is to me!) and not a useful in-the-field sort of way out of a problem. I suppose that blending in PS is also a bit of an added problem, and I, for one, would far rather find the single-shot ideal. Obviously, if computer time is part of the pleasure, that's something else and I understand that might be the case.
I think the 'reasonable' thing is to do as with tranny: decide which highlight area is most important and base exposure on that.
I believe that the more interesting landscapes that I see are interesting, very often, precisely because of the sky/cloud look they happen to have rather than because of the solid matter. In reality, our own eyes often hide shadow detail to reveal the wonders of the firmament to greater advantage i.e. contre jour work.
Rob C
-
I'm not sure about underexposing 2-3 stops, maybe 1 but probably no more. Thats why I keep a 2 stop graduated filter in my bag.
-
In order to be everyone talking about the same thing, the term "underexpose" has to be clearly defined. Underexpose, i.e. expose less, with respect to what?.
In landscape photography, where usually the sky matters, shooting RAW means only one correct exposure: ETTR. Anything below that is underexpose and anything above is overexpose.
Regards
-
In order to be everyone talking about the same thing, the term "underexpose" has to be clearly defined. Underexpose, i.e. expose less, with respect to what?.
Exactly, couldn't agree more.
In landscape photography, where usually the sky matters, shooting RAW means only one correct exposure: ETTR. Anything below that is underexpose and anything above is overexpose.
That's my take on it as well. One additional complication may be the highlight compression that applications like Lightroom / ACR tend to apply by default. Reducing the amount of the Highlight slider there will help a lot.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The 2 to 3 stops is pretty much meaningless because you have to eyeball how many stops is contained in each and every landscape at the same time determine whether each stop under or over in exposure will fit that unknown scene dynamic range into the dynamic range capabilities of the camera. Some cameras can capture 8 stops, some 14. How many of you can nail it every time just by looking at the camera's LCD? I can't with my DSLR and I've taken hundreds of landscapes shooting Raw.
I always just expose for cloud highlights which will make the Raw preview in ACR/LR quite dark looking. Is that under exposure?
And because from experience shooting a lot of these daylight scenes that the full spectrum aspect of such light tends to provide very clean, noise free tree foliage shadows capturing at the lowest ISO of my camera. But I'm using an old DSLR with 8 year old sensor technology having roughly 8 stops of capture capability.
I have no idea how dark or light a stop influences the results because I have no idea what contrast ratio it will render the scene with. A stop doesn't give a crap about contrast which is what we all have to edit back into or take away from our Raw images.
-
Exactly, couldn't agree more.
That's my take on it as well. One additional complication may be the highlight compression that applications like Lightroom / ACR tend to apply by default. Reducing the amount of the Highlight slider there will help a lot.
Cheers,
Bart
About highlight compression, I find that if two shots are exposed one stop in difference and if I decrease the most exposed in Lightroom by one stop and compare to the lesser exposed the histogram is very closely the same and the look of the shot is very close. What I see is that if you increase exposure for a given shot then highlight compression really goes into action without clipping until a certain point. I have done many comparisons of shots from brackets and edited one of them and then copied the edits to the other shots in the bracket sequence and normalized for the exposure difference by alt-shift-cmd-M (on the Mac) and then they look very very closely the same, except for noise and potential clipping in highlights. So therefore when I bracket, I choose the most exposed in Lightroom that does not have clipping with zero sliders except for the sun or other highlights that will always clip. I find very very few cases where this is not the optimal shot with the optimal exposure. So underexposure does not make any sense to me.
-
Any suggestions on why this might be a good idea? (Seems counter to the advice I've seen on LuLa and elsewhere.)
Makes no sense to me. I have not read why this person would suggest that, but I would say that the best exposure is the one that is the most exposed without clipping essential highlights. The final picture may very well in extreme cases need to be blended with another exposure some stops higher to avoid shadow noise depending on which camera is used.
-
In order to be everyone talking about the same thing, the term "underexpose" has to be clearly defined. Underexpose, i.e. expose less, with respect to what?.
In landscape photography, where usually the sky matters, shooting RAW means only one correct exposure: ETTR. Anything below that is underexpose and anything above is overexpose.
Regards
Agreed. I think in the case of the text in question in means the meter reading for the scene framed as-shot in matrix or maybe centre weighted.
-
Any suggestions on why this might be a good idea? (Seems counter to the advice I've seen on LuLa and elsewhere.)
Making a blanket statement like this may be fine for point and shoot photographers, but it is totally irresponsible in this day of digital imagery with the ability to see a histogram of the file - especially from a supposedly accomplished photographer writing a book.
I would assume (and perhaps incorrectly, but I don't think so), that someone who is taking the time to read a book for photographic instruction is interested in more than broad "shotgun" generalizations like the one given. He may as well have said "Just point and shoot on P mode" considering how good matrix meters are nowadays and because anyone following his original advice must not be interested in anything beyond snapshots.
Sorry for the rant, but advice like this really hit a nerve!
-
About highlight compression, I find that if two shots are exposed one stop in difference and if I decrease the most exposed in Lightroom by one stop and compare
My version of ACR doesn't apply any noticeable highlight compresion when the exposure slider is set above 0.0 and highlight clipping begins:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/acrps/exposicion_acr.gif)
If anyone is interested to find out how their exposure (or any) slider works just post the before (0.0) and after image(s) and I can calculate the curve.
Regards
-
My version of ACR doesn't apply any noticeable highlight compresion when the exposure slider is set above 0.0 and highlight clipping beggins:
Hi Guillermo,
I assume you are showing the ratio of the luminosity channel curves. Perhaps the tones are 'compressed' by keeping the highlights fixed and pushing up from the bottom (the bumps in the lower left hand quadrant of your graph)?
Jack
-
No, they are RGB curves. But since channel differentiation didn't add anything (the three RGB curves overlapped), I just plotted the B curve.
The bumps on the left were discussed with Eric Chan and it's not clear the reason for them. Could be some non-standard 2.2 gamma curve related issue. Anyway they only affect the deep shadows (think that those curves are plotted in a 2.2 gamma corrected domain).
-
I assume you are showing the ratio of the luminosity channel curves. Perhaps the tones are 'compressed' by keeping the highlights fixed and pushing up from the bottom (the bumps in the lower left hand quadrant of your graph)?
Jack's correct, and it would show easily with a stepwedge exposure. Highlight differences (equal increment/step sizes in luminosity) are compressed, but that can be changed with the 'Highlights' slider control in ACR/LR. It's an intentional effect of the process 2012 conversion engine.
Cheers,
Bart
-
My version of ACR doesn't apply any noticeable highlight compresion when the exposure slider is set above 0.0 and highlight clipping begins:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/article/acrps/exposicion_acr.gif)
If anyone is interested to find out how their exposure (or any) slider works just post the before (0.0) and after image(s) and I can calculate the curve.
Regards
That looks like Process version 2010.
-
… but I would say that the best exposure is the one that is the most exposed without clipping essential highlights. The final picture may very well in extreme cases need to be blended with another exposure some stops higher to avoid shadow noise depending on which camera is used.
For a high-contrast mid-day landscape picture I've just been working on: I took a matrix metered reference exposure, then I set the exposure using the live view histogram and checked the camera jpeg histogram after a test shot and bracketed 0.7EV; and as-it-happens that was -2EV +-0.7EV from the reference exposure.
Now I'd say that -2EV plus -3EV, from the matrix metered exposure, would have provided what I needed in the raw file.
Maybe I'll try to keep track of how well that works out for the scenes I photograph in the future.
-
For a high-contrast mid-day landscape picture I've just been working on: I took a matrix metered reference exposure, then I set the exposure using the live view histogram and checked the camera jpeg histogram after a test shot and bracketed 0.7EV; and as-it-happens that was -2EV +-0.7EV from the reference exposure.
Now I'd say that -2EV plus -3EV, from the matrix metered exposure, would have provided what I needed in the raw file.
Hi Isaac,
Assuming you own a recent FF Nikon ('matrix') like the D750 or D810 you may want to try a single capture in Highlight-Weighted Metering mode with ADL set to Auto and see if you achieve results comparable to the ones obtained through your machinations ;)
Jack
-
Assuming you own a recent FF Nikon ('matrix') like the D750 or D810 …
No, a relatively old SLT-α35 (https://esupport.sony.com/US/p/model-home.pl?mdl=SLTA35&template_id=1®ion_id=1&tab=manuals#/manualsTab).
Although Sony cameras (http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/01/advanced-dro-the-a700s-magic-bullet/) (including mine) have also used Apical's DR technology (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3798759501/apical) for several years.
I would use jpeg and would use camera DRO/ADL and HDR and AE; but I don't want even the minimum-level of camera noise-reduction / sharpening / contrast / WB -- so I'm pushed into using raw without DRO.
-
No, a relatively old SLT-α35 (https://esupport.sony.com/US/p/model-home.pl?mdl=SLTA35&template_id=1®ion_id=1&tab=manuals#/manualsTab).
Although Sony cameras (http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/01/advanced-dro-the-a700s-magic-bullet/) (including mine) have also used Apical's DR technology (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3798759501/apical) for several years.
I would use jpeg and would use camera DRO/ADL and HDR and AE; but I don't want even the minimum-level of camera noise-reduction / sharpening / contrast / WB -- so I'm pushed into using raw without DRO.
Sounds exciting, what do they look like?
-
Although Sony cameras (http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/01/advanced-dro-the-a700s-magic-bullet/) (including mine) have also used Apical's DR technology (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3798759501/apical) for several years.
several years as in since A7s (announced on Apr 6, 2014), no ?
-
No, several years as-in November 8th, 2006 (http://www.apical.co.uk/2006/11/08/new-sony-alpha-d-slr-uses-apical-technology/).
-
No, several years as-in November 8th, 2006 (http://www.apical.co.uk/2006/11/08/new-sony-alpha-d-slr-uses-apical-technology/).
I see... my fault, I missed that it was __apical__, not __aptina__ !
-
There is no practical reason to generally underexpose by 2-3 stops for every landscape image.
Without more reasoning, it seems he matrix meters and then to ensure highlights do not clip, he underexposes. But this does not account for any other tones in the image, nor DR range of the camera versus the DR range of the scene.
My philosophy is to bracket when I'm in doubt. Not only is it more likely you will get a usable file, but sometimes compositing or HDR is worth doing even when you are not going for some oversaturated look.
Because of the extended DR of my D810 an how well the shadows lift, I have played with the highlight weighted metering mode as a way to "auto" meter while protecting the highlights, but I'm not totally happy with it in some situations, so I still bracket.
Any suggestions on why this might be a good idea? (Seems counter to the advice I've seen on LuLa and elsewhere.)
-
Sounds exciting, what do they look like?
You have a Nikon, don't you already know what ADL exposures look like? (DRO is the Sony implementation).
(matrix 1/125, matrix+autoDRO 1/125, matrix_autoHDR 1/100, manual 1/60).
-
Assuming you own a recent FF Nikon ('matrix') like the D750 or D810 you may want to try a single capture in Highlight-Weighted Metering mode with ADL set to Auto and see if you achieve results comparable to the ones obtained through your machinations ;)
From a single capture, manual exposure raw, my machinations would probably lead me in this kind-of direction (via some +EV, masking and blending).
-
You have a Nikon, don't you already know what ADL exposures look like? (DRO is the Sony implementation).
(matrix 1/125, matrix+autoDRO 1/125, matrix_autoHDR 1/100, manual 1/60).
Oh, I thought you'd taken some actual photographs rather than just random clouds, unless random clouds are your thing, nothing wrong with that BTW.
-
Don't be silly -- they're photographs of a wall!
I took these especially for you, to show one situation that will cause problems when blindly using AE; and I'm a little surprised you haven't suggested boosting ADL/DRO to the max.
-
Don't be silly -- they're photographs of a wall!
I took these especially for you, to show one situation that will cause problems when blindly using AE; and I'm a little surprised you haven't suggested boosting ADL/DRO to the max.
Here's one reason -
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/fsqd6p6h/Active-D-Lighting.html
Scroll down until you see the two pictures of a flower bed and building. Now which uses ADL and which is the more commercial (salable) picture?
-
…and which is the more commercial (salable) picture?
Obviously you have an opinion about that.
-
Obviously you have an opinion about that.
Of course, but then I am in the business of trying to make a few small pennies with cameras rather than faff about with fancy settings which in this case are detrimental to the overall image quality.
-
…faff about with fancy settings…
Much the same thing in phone cameras, except the fancy settings are set to auto.
…are detrimental to the overall image quality.
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes…
max DRO might be a little too much, but for the 3rd clematis bloom this year I could just use some aluminum foil as a reflector ;-)
-
If you take any subject and underexpose it by -1 EV and then shoot it at 0.0 EV and then again at +1.0 EV and adjust each RAW file to provide the best image you will very seldom find the -1 EV provides the better image in terms of both detail and color fidelity. On the other hand a surprising amount of time the overexposed image will provide the best image once adjusted. The reason is simple as with underexposed images RAW data is lost from the sensor and that data is not contained in the image file to be recovered in post processing.
This is why in large part why I seldom use matrix metering as I find that it usually results in an underexposed image with normal to wide perspective lenses.
-
Cole Thompson underexposes his images, and it works for him.
http://www.photographyblackwhite.com/video-discovering-vision-black-white/ (http://www.photographyblackwhite.com/video-discovering-vision-black-white/)
-
Cole Thompson underexposes his images, and it works for him.
http://www.photographyblackwhite.com/video-discovering-vision-black-white/ (http://www.photographyblackwhite.com/video-discovering-vision-black-white/)
So, you post a link to a topic that requires a purchase to hear what Cole has to say? Not very cool doode...personally I couldn't care less what Cole has to say about anything if I have to pay to hear it (I'm not a rookie in this area).
But "underexposing" is never an optimal approach–seriously!
-
But "underexposing" is never an optimal approach–seriously!
In the bottom Q&A section, Cole explains why he underexposes. He admits he does things the wrong way because it helps him to visualize the scene, as well as preserve the highlights. His work is successful, and I don't argue with success.
-
So, you post a link to a topic that requires a purchase to hear what Cole has to say? Not very cool doode...personally I couldn't care less what Cole has to say about anything if I have to pay to hear it (I'm not a rookie in this area).
But "underexposing" is never an optimal approach–seriously!
In the bottom Q&A section, Cole explains why he underexposes. He admits he does things the wrong way because it helps him to visualize the scene, as well as preserve the highlights. His work is successful, and I don't argue with success.
+1 regarding Schewe's post. I haven't taken the trouble to pay for Cole's misinformation, but if he wishes to "visualize the scene" he could well use a different approach. Visualization would be aided by rendering the raw file linearly. I don't know what raw converter or settings Cole uses, but underexposing the image would result in a more linear file with PV2012, since automatic highlight protection would not be invoked with the underexposed image.
It would be better to expose normally and then visualize the file with a more or less linear rendering. This could be accomplished by using PV2010 with a linear tone curve and the sliders on the main panel all set to zero.
Regards,
Bill
-
In the bottom Q&A section, Cole explains why he underexposes. He admits he does things the wrong way because it helps him to visualize the scene, as well as preserve the highlights. His work is successful, and I don't argue with success.
So are McDonalds hamburgers but I don't buy nor eat them.
Wrong is wrong, this guy is wrong technically and he's producing inferior quality image data.
-
Read Cole's blog (which by the way is free). Cole is not recommending that anyone follow his methods - certainly not for general landscape photography! Cole's techniques are really very simple and help him produce images that meet his unique vision. For his black and white work this level of underexposure is no problem, because he almost always darkens the shadows even more! For the photographer who is trying to show more detail in the shadows, his methods would obviously not be recommended! If you want to produce dark, brooding black and white images as he does, his techniques might work well for you.
-
Read Cole's blog (which by the way is free). Cole is not recommending that anyone follow his methods - certainly not for general landscape photography! Cole's techniques are really very simple and help him produce images that meet his unique vision. For his black and white work this level of underexposure is no problem, because he almost always darkens the shadows even more! For the photographer who is trying to show more detail in the shadows, his methods would obviously not be recommended! If you want to produce dark, brooding black and white images as he does, his techniques might work well for you.
I can see where he is coming from. I do street photography with a contrasty B&W image in mind. In street photography there isn't time to carefully meter the scene so underexposing instead of metering to preserve the highlights is the way to go. In processing I will darken the dark tones further. In this context I think his methods are perfectly acceptable and It is the final image that counts, not theoretically "best practice" :(
-
I can see where he is coming from. I do street photography with a contrasty B&W image in mind. In street photography there isn't time to carefully meter the scene so underexposing instead of metering to preserve the highlights is the way to go. In processing I will darken the dark tones further. In this context I think his methods are perfectly acceptable and It is the final image that counts, not theoretically "best practice" :(
Hi,
What kind of exposure metering do you use that needs 2-3 stops of deliberate underexposure only to preserve the highlights??? Exposure corrections on my camera are usually dialed in as minus 1/3rd or 2/3rd EV if highlights need protection, if on auto exposure.
A competent photographer can also get great results with manual exposure, but you need time to think ahead, and lighting conditions that do not fluctuate a lot.
I got the impression that Cole, despite proper (?) exposure metering, still underexposes to pre-visualize the image as it would look after postprocessing. That's very odd for someone with experience, that he cannot make the mental connection of how his image is going to look when he takes it.
Besides, after he took the shot, the exposure is frozen already, so how does he know how to underexpose (did he measure it beforehand?), or is it a permanent -EV correction? If it's permanent, then how is it helping him to pre-visualize after the fact?
It simply sounds like poor technique to me.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
What kind of exposure metering do you use that needs 2-3 stops of deliberate underexposure only to preserve the highlights??? Exposure corrections on my camera are usually dialed in as minus 1/3rd or 2/3rd EV if highlights need protection, if on auto exposure.
A competent photographer can also get great results with manual exposure, but you need time to think ahead, and lighting conditions that do not fluctuate a lot.
In street photography using an Olympus EM5 on a contrasty day if I want to preserve details in a sky or the lightest area then - 1 and 1/3 EV preserves detail in the sky or light area. In playback I see a little sign of the blinkies which I am happy with. I sometimes use less EV if I am not too bothered about detail and if I am not bothered about highlight detail at all then no EV adjustments. The EM5 has a spot metering mode that when you focus on a dark area then the highlight details are captured properly. I think it uses a -2 EV to preserve details. I don't use these methods for landscape with large areas of sky. I spot meter for the sky, lock exposure and dial in + 2 and focus as appropriately.